9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has got the assignment from the UK company was made clear in the returns of classification. The authority, who processed them was satisfied about this. There must be clinching evidence for reopening the case under Section 11A of the Act. The mere fact that a different view is possible on the same set of facts cannot be a ground to exercise power under that provision. There is no dispute that it has manufactured the product by itself. The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Supreme Court [2003 (8) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and we do not find any basis to interfere with the same. - Decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 122 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2014 - L. Narasimha Reddy and Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. Dr. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Tribunal, Bangalore (for short the Tribunal ). Through its order, dated 2-2-2006, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE, Ahmedabad v. Vikshara Trading Investments P. Ltd - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). Not satisfied with the outcome of the appeal, the Department filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act (for short the Act ). 3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. The controversy in this appeal is as to whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit under the notification, dated 28-2-1993. It manufactured a product by name Virkon-S and its claim for the benefit of exemption under the notification was allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecified goods manufactured by a manufacturer, bear a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another manufacturer or trader, such specified goods shall not, merely by reason of that fact, be deemed to have been manufactured by such other manufacturer or trader. 7. From this, it becomes clear that as long as an assessee has manufactured the goods, the mere fact that he used the trade or brand name of another individual does not make any difference. This may take in its fold the case of assignment of the trade mark. Even otherwise what becomes essential is the activity of manufacture of the product, than mere usage of brand name. 8. In the instant case, the respondent clearly pleaded that it has the proper assignment to use the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
